- the author doesn't have any credentials
- he has a cult of personality
- he is marketing it effectively
Says nothing about the validity or effectiveness of its contents.
Nothing? That's a significant exaggeration. Is it possible that a heavily marketed book written by a layman (whose face happens to appear prominently on the front cover) featured on a daytime talk show might contain overwhelmingly good advice? Sure, it's possible, but unlikely, because evidence-based self-help books don't need to be marketed that way.
Feral on
every person who doesn't like an acquired taste always seems to think everyone who likes it is faking it. it should be an official fallacy.
- the author doesn't have any credentials
- he has a cult of personality
- he is marketing it effectively
Says nothing about the validity or effectiveness of its contents.
Nothing? That's a significant exaggeration. Is it possible that a heavily marketed book written by a layman (whose face happens to appear prominently on the front cover) featured on a daytime talk show might contain overwhelmingly good advice? Sure, it's possible, but unlikely, because evidence-based self-help books don't need to be marketed that way.
I'm vaguely reminded of when I was in high school and the teacher would have their back turned. The class troublemaker throws something, gets called on it and uses the "you don't know it was me!" defense.
It was a bit of a stretch, but the defense ege is using is "you can't prove in this specific case that the advice is bad", when, it looks and sounds like every other case. Think of the reasoning perpetual motion people use for another example.
Have we, as a group, laughed at Men Are from Mars yet? We all need to have a nice collective chortle at that piece of shit. I'm sure Cat agrees, if nothing else.
Murphy, I'm sure you're a fully self-actualized millionaire with no neurosis and a perfect personal life easily captured by your charm and six pack and all, but some of us engage in irrational behavior.
Of course I'm not. But I'm sure you already knew that.
If we could stop doing the behavior, without guidance of any sort, then it wouldn't be irrational behavior and thus would not create any life problems.
Not necessarily. It's entirely possible to figure out on your own and without external help that some of the things you are doing are destructive, or just not constructive, and then you can decide to change your behavior. Sure, some people have more success with it than others, but it isn't that uncommon.
Let me ask you something - do personal trainers make you feel the same way? I mean, they just tell you to exercise, people know that already, right? So what's the point of paying a guy for motivation and specifics? Why not just exercise on your own?
It's not a very good analogy at all. There are specific ways to exercise. If you don't do things correctly you could seriously hurt yourself. Going to a paid professional for advice is perfectly reasonable behavior.
How is paying someone to tell you that the way to stop procrastinating is to stop procrastinating anything like seeking specific advice from a trained professional?
At no point have I said that all self-help is a waste of time, or deserving of mockery. I have a particular beef with the crap that is the 7 Habits, but otherwise, I'm pretty ambivalent about it.
It's entirely possible to learn MANY things without instruction or help or RTMFing
but it takes longer - much longer for most people.
RE the trained professional - that's exactly what I'm saying to you. YOU see "stop procrastinating" as simple advice, the way I already know how to do a nice hammer curl. You don't think it's possible to "stop procrastinating" and hurt yourself? Nobody ever hurt themselves by say, jumping the gun starting a business on credit?
Are some of the "big print, big words" books silly and light? Yes. But some people out there might need those baby steps.
But not every book you read is going to be your style, and nobody's claiming that every self-help book you read is going to be some kind of infallible life-changing tome of wisdom.
Except, y'know, the back covers of the books themselves, and sometimes the introductions.
If person A is buying self-help book B because they honestly believe the marketing and they expect it to change their lives, the problem isn't with the book, it's with the person.
You can get something from every book out there, regardless of topic, its contents, or the way it is marketed. Just because the book makes grandiose claims about what it's going to accomplish doesn't mean one should dismiss it right away.
Yes, it pretty much does. Much in the way that if I found a book claiming to teach me how to turn lead into gold, I would have to be retarded not to dismiss it right away. Especially if the creepy-looking head on the cover insists that it's the best lead-to-gold book on the market and garuanteed to work.
RE the trained professional - that's exactly what I'm saying to you. YOU see "stop procrastinating" as simple advice, the way I already know how to do a nice hammer curl. You don't think it's possible to "stop procrastinating" and hurt yourself? Nobody ever hurt themselves by say, jumping the gun starting a business on credit?
If by "stop procrastinating" you mean, "start my own business", then by god say so. There is a big difference between having to have someone tell you to stop putting things off, and telling you how to start your own business.
Why are you arguing a point I'm not trying to make?
But not every book you read is going to be your style, and nobody's claiming that every self-help book you read is going to be some kind of infallible life-changing tome of wisdom.
Except, y'know, the back covers of the books themselves, and sometimes the introductions.
If person A is buying self-help book B because they honestly believe the marketing and they expect it to change their lives, the problem isn't with the book, it's with the person.
You can get something from every book out there, regardless of topic, its contents, or the way it is marketed. Just because the book makes grandiose claims about what it's going to accomplish doesn't mean one should dismiss it right away.
Yes, it pretty much does. Much in the way that if I found a book claiming to teach me how to turn lead into gold, I would have to be retarded not to dismiss it right away. Especially if the creepy-looking head on the cover insists that it's the best lead-to-gold book on the market and garuanteed to work.
Who is teaching things that are not physically possible? That's right, nobody. So your analogy is pretty much crap.
You know, in one of the articles in the reading section of my GMAT book it was talking about a study they did some years ago in which they found out that after a certain threshold, the more advertising a company does for their product, the less the public thinks of it. The psychologists said that this misconception was attributed to people's tendency to think that the reason the product is rigorously advertised is because the product maker doesn't have faith in their product, which means the product must be crap, which means it won't help the buyer in any way.
But not every book you read is going to be your style, and nobody's claiming that every self-help book you read is going to be some kind of infallible life-changing tome of wisdom.
Except, y'know, the back covers of the books themselves, and sometimes the introductions.
If person A is buying self-help book B because they honestly believe the marketing and they expect it to change their lives, the problem isn't with the book, it's with the person.
You can get something from every book out there, regardless of topic, its contents, or the way it is marketed. Just because the book makes grandiose claims about what it's going to accomplish doesn't mean one should dismiss it right away.
Yes, it pretty much does. Much in the way that if I found a book claiming to teach me how to turn lead into gold, I would have to be retarded not to dismiss it right away. Especially if the creepy-looking head on the cover insists that it's the best lead-to-gold book on the market and garuanteed to work.
Who is teaching things that are not physically possible? That's right, nobody. So your analogy is pretty much crap.
You know, in one of the articles in the reading section of my GMAT book it was talking about a study they did some years ago in which they found out that after a certain threshold, the more advertising a company does for their product, the less the public thinks of it. The psychologists said that this misconception was attributed to people's tendency to think that the reason the product is rigorously advertised is because the product maker doesn't have faith in their product, which means the product must be crap, which means it won't help the buyer in any way.
It's basically one giant slippery slope.
Feeling the need to overadvertise your book on its own cover isn't indicative of anything, you say? Sort of like feeling the need to have a V10 sportscar to drive to work doesn't indicate anything. That's not to say there's only one thing it could indicate, but enough are bad that it's worth bearing in mind when deciding between two books. Particularly when the one over-advertising claims to solve your life while the other claims to, say, help you assert yourself less offensively.
Feeling the need to overadvertise your book on its own cover isn't indicative of anything, you say? Sort of like feeling the need to have a V10 sportscar to drive to work doesn't indicate anything.
Well, it indicates that I like driving fast cars to work.
And maybe, if you're the jealous, bitter kind, you might think it indicates I'm compensating for my short cock, or something.
That's not to say there's only one thing it could indicate, but enough are bad that it's worth bearing in mind when deciding between two books. Particularly when the one over-advertising claims to solve your life while the other claims to, say, help you assert yourself less offensively.
I don't buy self-help books because they promise to change my life. I don't think many people do. Personally speaking, I usually spend upwards to an hour in the bookstore skimming over them to make sure they offer something meaningful. Either that, or I buy them right away because they are recommended by someone I respect and trust.
I think it's normal to buy products that are marketed more effectively. That being said, however, you have to ask yourself: if a product promises you big things, does this mean the product itself is crap, or that it is simply attempting to exploit vulnerabilities in human condition in order to sell more copies? I don't believe in the latter - like I said, it's like an "ad bookinem" fallacy - you're looking at the outer appearance to draw conclusions about the content; it's no different than saying "your argument is wrong because you're a dumbass". And the latter - exploiting vulnerabilities in human condition, particularly the condition that people typically look for easy ways out of their problems, and they want them now - has more to do with "ethics of marketing" than the actual content of the book.
I don't believe in the whole "if the product is good, it will sell itself" argument. That's not how marketing works.
Feeling the need to overadvertise your book on its own cover isn't indicative of anything, you say? Sort of like feeling the need to have a V10 sportscar to drive to work doesn't indicate anything.
Well, it indicates that I like driving fast cars to work.
And maybe, if you're the jealous, bitter kind, you might think it indicates I'm compensating for my short cock, or something.
You're seriously arguing that no one ever buys a big engine to compensate? That's your argument?
Edit: On second look, you're just absurdly insecure, having decided that my argument has anything at all to do with the size of your penis. Seriously, much as you think it's the only thing in life, penises aren't the only things that can be inadequate and thus aren't the only things people in general or men in particular compensate for.
The rest of your post doesn't make any sense and leaves me with the impression that you don't know the difference between "effective" and "excessive".
I've got a very good repore with my bosses because of my frank honesty. If I've stuffed something up, I let them know about it and what I intend to do to fix it so it doesn't happen again etc. Builds up trust.
Rapport.
My excuses usually go something like, "If only I weren't such a lazy slob..."
I've got a very good repore with my bosses because of my frank honesty. If I've stuffed something up, I let them know about it and what I intend to do to fix it so it doesn't happen again etc. Builds up trust.
Rapport.
My excuses usually go something like, "If only I weren't such a lazy slob..."
Those are my short term excuses. So far I've been pretty good at fulfilling my long term ones.
Feeling the need to overadvertise your book on its own cover isn't indicative of anything, you say? Sort of like feeling the need to have a V10 sportscar to drive to work doesn't indicate anything.
Well, it indicates that I like driving fast cars to work.
And maybe, if you're the jealous, bitter kind, you might think it indicates I'm compensating for my short cock, or something.
You're seriously arguing that no one ever buys a big engine to compensate? That's your argument?
No, that's the strawman version. I didn't say "no one". I'm saying you cannot know whether they are compensating for something, and if they are, what it is they are compensating for, just by looking at the kind of car they are driving.
Similarly, you cannot look at the way a book is marketed and conclusively decide the author is trying to compensate for lack of content. You can suspect it, but if you do that you're basically stereotyping the entire self-help industry. And you know why stereotyping is bad, right? Good.
Feeling the need to overadvertise your book on its own cover isn't indicative of anything, you say? Sort of like feeling the need to have a V10 sportscar to drive to work doesn't indicate anything.
Well, it indicates that I like driving fast cars to work.
And maybe, if you're the jealous, bitter kind, you might think it indicates I'm compensating for my short cock, or something.
You're seriously arguing that no one ever buys a big engine to compensate? That's your argument?
No, that's the strawman version. I didn't say "no one". I'm saying you cannot know whether they are compensating for something, and if they are, what it is they are compensating for, just by looking at the kind of car they are driving.
Similarly, you cannot look at the way a book is marketed and conclusively decide the author is trying to compensate for lack of content. You can suspect it, but if you do that you're basically stereotyping the entire self-help industry. And you know why stereotyping is bad, right? Good.
Ah, well maybe you should have said something else if that wasn't your argument. In any case, there is very little possibility of anyone having a remotely rational reason for needing to drive a Viper to work everyday, even if someone "just loves fast cars" they probably don't like paying the gas-prices to move that thing back and forth between work and home every day, more likely they drive the Viper on weekends and special occasions and the rest of the week drive something not-absurd. If they don't, there's almost certainly something wrong in their head. You're aware that this isn't stereotyping, right? Of course you're not.
Anyway, no, I can't look at a book and decide "conclusively" that the book lacks content, but I can look at a book and see that there's nothing on either cover that doesn't remind me of a Buddy's Carpet commercial and decide that if the author doesn't even know that annoying the shit out of people drives them away, I probably don't need any self-help from them.
Also, stereotyping books isn't quite as comparable to stereotyping people as you would seem to like.
Fucking self help books... I've read 50% of two self help books over the years. One was called "The Luck Factor" which apparently existed to convince me that there's no such thing as luck through incredibly pointless experiments performed by real scienticians! I recall being unconvinced, and while I don't think I ever particularly believed in luck, if I had to think of a term for a whole lot of things that have happened to me I would call it "bad luck."
The second was "Your Money or Your Life." A whole book devoted to advice for me to stop having to work jobs I hate and retire early. Great! Except that the whole book boils down to, "Make a budget. Don't spend money on anything under any circumstances. Enjoy your life (somehow)!" Wow, great advice. So I can enjoy a life of poverty while saving all that money I'm earning in jobs I hate... I might even be able to retire by the time I'm 70 with this plan! Awesome work. Seriously.
So color me unimpressed with self-help books. They're all just a load of common sense bullshit. A quick web search for "How do i save money?" or "How to I motivate myself?" would produce the exact same advice only concise and free. I've considered writing self help books on several occasions because it obviously requires no fucking ability or thought whatsoever.
Posts
Yes, exactly. I'm not denying that credentials help, but not only credentialed professionals give good advice.
Looking at a book and noting that:
- the author doesn't have any credentials
- he has a cult of personality
- he is marketing it effectively
Says nothing about the validity or effectiveness of its contents.
Nothing? That's a significant exaggeration. Is it possible that a heavily marketed book written by a layman (whose face happens to appear prominently on the front cover) featured on a daytime talk show might contain overwhelmingly good advice? Sure, it's possible, but unlikely, because evidence-based self-help books don't need to be marketed that way.
the "no true scotch man" fallacy.
I'm vaguely reminded of when I was in high school and the teacher would have their back turned. The class troublemaker throws something, gets called on it and uses the "you don't know it was me!" defense.
the "no true scotch man" fallacy.
It's entirely possible to learn MANY things without instruction or help or RTMFing
but it takes longer - much longer for most people.
RE the trained professional - that's exactly what I'm saying to you. YOU see "stop procrastinating" as simple advice, the way I already know how to do a nice hammer curl. You don't think it's possible to "stop procrastinating" and hurt yourself? Nobody ever hurt themselves by say, jumping the gun starting a business on credit?
Are some of the "big print, big words" books silly and light? Yes. But some people out there might need those baby steps.
I host a podcast about movies.
Yes, it pretty much does. Much in the way that if I found a book claiming to teach me how to turn lead into gold, I would have to be retarded not to dismiss it right away. Especially if the creepy-looking head on the cover insists that it's the best lead-to-gold book on the market and garuanteed to work.
Why are you arguing a point I'm not trying to make?
The spelling error wouldn't have been funny if you hadn't hit another real word. Meaning "forbid" or "prohibit via judicial injunction".
Who is teaching things that are not physically possible? That's right, nobody. So your analogy is pretty much crap.
You know, in one of the articles in the reading section of my GMAT book it was talking about a study they did some years ago in which they found out that after a certain threshold, the more advertising a company does for their product, the less the public thinks of it. The psychologists said that this misconception was attributed to people's tendency to think that the reason the product is rigorously advertised is because the product maker doesn't have faith in their product, which means the product must be crap, which means it won't help the buyer in any way.
It's basically one giant slippery slope.
Feeling the need to overadvertise your book on its own cover isn't indicative of anything, you say? Sort of like feeling the need to have a V10 sportscar to drive to work doesn't indicate anything. That's not to say there's only one thing it could indicate, but enough are bad that it's worth bearing in mind when deciding between two books. Particularly when the one over-advertising claims to solve your life while the other claims to, say, help you assert yourself less offensively.
Well, it indicates that I like driving fast cars to work.
And maybe, if you're the jealous, bitter kind, you might think it indicates I'm compensating for my short cock, or something.
I don't buy self-help books because they promise to change my life. I don't think many people do. Personally speaking, I usually spend upwards to an hour in the bookstore skimming over them to make sure they offer something meaningful. Either that, or I buy them right away because they are recommended by someone I respect and trust.
I think it's normal to buy products that are marketed more effectively. That being said, however, you have to ask yourself: if a product promises you big things, does this mean the product itself is crap, or that it is simply attempting to exploit vulnerabilities in human condition in order to sell more copies? I don't believe in the latter - like I said, it's like an "ad bookinem" fallacy - you're looking at the outer appearance to draw conclusions about the content; it's no different than saying "your argument is wrong because you're a dumbass". And the latter - exploiting vulnerabilities in human condition, particularly the condition that people typically look for easy ways out of their problems, and they want them now - has more to do with "ethics of marketing" than the actual content of the book.
I don't believe in the whole "if the product is good, it will sell itself" argument. That's not how marketing works.
You're seriously arguing that no one ever buys a big engine to compensate? That's your argument?
Edit: On second look, you're just absurdly insecure, having decided that my argument has anything at all to do with the size of your penis. Seriously, much as you think it's the only thing in life, penises aren't the only things that can be inadequate and thus aren't the only things people in general or men in particular compensate for.
The rest of your post doesn't make any sense and leaves me with the impression that you don't know the difference between "effective" and "excessive".
My excuses usually go something like, "If only I weren't such a lazy slob..."
No, that's the strawman version. I didn't say "no one". I'm saying you cannot know whether they are compensating for something, and if they are, what it is they are compensating for, just by looking at the kind of car they are driving.
Similarly, you cannot look at the way a book is marketed and conclusively decide the author is trying to compensate for lack of content. You can suspect it, but if you do that you're basically stereotyping the entire self-help industry. And you know why stereotyping is bad, right? Good.
Ah, well maybe you should have said something else if that wasn't your argument. In any case, there is very little possibility of anyone having a remotely rational reason for needing to drive a Viper to work everyday, even if someone "just loves fast cars" they probably don't like paying the gas-prices to move that thing back and forth between work and home every day, more likely they drive the Viper on weekends and special occasions and the rest of the week drive something not-absurd. If they don't, there's almost certainly something wrong in their head. You're aware that this isn't stereotyping, right? Of course you're not.
Anyway, no, I can't look at a book and decide "conclusively" that the book lacks content, but I can look at a book and see that there's nothing on either cover that doesn't remind me of a Buddy's Carpet commercial and decide that if the author doesn't even know that annoying the shit out of people drives them away, I probably don't need any self-help from them.
Also, stereotyping books isn't quite as comparable to stereotyping people as you would seem to like.
The second was "Your Money or Your Life." A whole book devoted to advice for me to stop having to work jobs I hate and retire early. Great! Except that the whole book boils down to, "Make a budget. Don't spend money on anything under any circumstances. Enjoy your life (somehow)!" Wow, great advice. So I can enjoy a life of poverty while saving all that money I'm earning in jobs I hate... I might even be able to retire by the time I'm 70 with this plan! Awesome work. Seriously.
So color me unimpressed with self-help books. They're all just a load of common sense bullshit. A quick web search for "How do i save money?" or "How to I motivate myself?" would produce the exact same advice only concise and free. I've considered writing self help books on several occasions because it obviously requires no fucking ability or thought whatsoever.